Renaissance and Reformation, 1984

62
/
Renaissance and Reformation
misleading and ignores what we know of Donne and casuistry from works by
Camille Slights {The Casuistical Tradition [Princeton, 1982]) and A.E. Malloch
("Donne and the Casuists," SEL 2[1962], 57-76). And all this is not even to
mention a curious reference under CASUISTRY to I, 180-84 that promises a
four-page discussion of casuistry but does not deliver it. The pages actually
overlap two sermons on completely different texts and refer again to false reasoning
rather than to casuistry.
I must conclude by reiterating that despite its obvious utility, the unreliability of
such a necessary work makes it dangerous indeed to the inexperienced. The
carelessness of the first volume is easily checked. But the inadequacies of the
cross-referencing (indicated
by
my SCANDAL example)
and the power
to per-
petuate misleading definitions (indicated by my CASUISTRY example) in the third
volume indicate only too clearly that the work must be used with discretion as well as
way of knowing Donne through his
sermons. In the end, despite the many things that have been brought together in these
volumes, they are still no substitute for careful observation, systematic note-taking
and imaginative cross-referencing.
imagination, and with a healthy mistrust of this
JEANNE M.
SHANfl,
University
Malcolm Smith. Montaigne and
ofRegina
the
Roman
Censors. Geneve: Librairie Droz,
1981. Pp. 139, Fr.s. 28.00
The earliest account of Montaigne's mishap at the gates of Rome is to be found in
the Discours préliminaire that Meunier de Querlon wrote for the first edition oïLe
Journal de Voyage de Michel de Montaigne en Italie, which was published
simultaneously in Paris and in Rome in 1774. There we can read: "Les deux
premiers Livres des Essais ftirent imprimés pour la première fois à Bordeaux en
1580; ils parurent, par conséquent, au moins quelques mois avant le voyage de
Montaigne en Italie, puisqu'il trouva cet ouvrage à Rome entre les mains des
Examinateurs, dont il avoit déjà subi la censure." (Quoted from p. 60 of the
Dédéyan edition.) The Journal gives us further details that allow us to understand
better what happened. Smith's first chapter contained the pertinent passages in
full, but regrettably in his English translation, without page references to the
Dèdèyan ed. of the original: "[Montaigne's] cases had been inspected by the
customs men as he entered the city
furthermore, all the books that had been
found in his cases [ is cases the best translation ofcojjresl] had been taken from him
to be examined" ( Smith, p. 1 5 ). Nearly four months later, on March 20, 1 5 8 1 the
Essais were returned to their author, "châtiés selon l'opinion des Docturs Moines"
(Dédéyan éd., p. 232). The chief censor had to engage the help "d'aucun Prater
François" to make sure of every reprehensible passage. Then, "il remit à ma
consciance de rabiller ce que je verrois être de mauves gout."
What were the bones of contention? Six had been sorted out when the Essais
were returned to Montaigne. Each objection becomes the substance of a chapter in
Smith's book, beginning with Montaigne's frequent use of the v/ordsfortune (173
,
Renaissance
times in the
1
et
Réforme
/
63
580 éd., "with a variety of meanings"). Smith asks the obvious question,
"What is there about the word 'fortune' that could cause a censor to frown?" and he
answers, "Behind this word there lurked the shadow of the goddess Fortuna, a
frequent subject of that ancient pagan poetry so often denounced by early
christian theologians" (p. 24). The value of Smith's study resides mainly in the
fact that he goes far beyond a delineation of the infractions. It was not easy to
are ftilly informed about the
unravel how Montaigne reacted to the censorship.
We
adjustments made by the accused, who was well aware of the likelihood that the
Maestro del sacro palasso (the chief censor) would not turn sleepy after having
been so alert. With regard to the diplomacy used by Montaigne to make Fortuna
more tractable. Smith observes, "In later editions of his book, Montaigne retained
his earlier use of 'fortune', but in several chapters he added unobtrusive glosses on
what he meant by the word, gently hinting at the edifying nature of his use of the
concept" (p. 30). Other incriminations were due to [2] "d'avoir nommé des Poètes
haeretiques, [3] d'avoir excusé Juhan, et [4] 1' animadversion sur ce que celui qui
prioit, de voit être exampt de vitieuse inclination pour ce tamps; item [5] d'estimer
cruauté ce qui est audelà de mort simple; item [6] qu'il falloit nourrir un enfant à
tout faire" (Journal, p. 232). The headings used by Smith clarify what is involved:
"Montaigne's praise of Theodore Beza's poetry;" "Montaigne's defence of Julian's
statesmanship;" "On prayers and repentance;" "Humane executions;" and
"Liberal education. Being able to do anything." "The goddess Fortuna" has
already been mentioned.
Montaigne's maneuvers are fascinating. He accommodates without selling out
his principles and without resorting to duplicity. After having placed De Bèze and
Buchanan among the "bons artisans" near the end of "De la Praesumption"
(together with Daurat, L'Hospital, and Tumèbe), a modest accolade that was
enough to draw censure, Montaigne did not renege on his praise of de Bèze as a
poet. Rather, in "Sur des vers de Virgile" (about 1586) Montaigne claims for
himself the same Hcentiousness that "mesme des hommes ecclésiastiques des
nostres et plus crestez jouissent en ce siècle" (Villey-Saulnier éd., p. 888). And
there follows a quotation from De Bèze* s Juvenilia (of which Montaigne possessed a
copy) which refers to the lady's rimula in no uncertain terms. Similarly, we find in
"De la vanité," on p. 989 of the same edition: " J'ay veu en ma jeunesse un galant
homme presenter d'une main au peuple des vers excellens en beauté et en desbordement [i.e., licentiousness], et de l'autre main en mesme instant la plus
quereleuse reformation théologienne de quoy le monde se soit desjeuné il y a long
temps." Thus Montaigne did not withdraw his appreciation of De Béze's poetry
(still beautiful), but he did reprimand the Protestant churchman who indulged in
such libertine language.
Just as Montaigne upheld the merits of De Bèze's poetry, he defended the
statesmanship of emperor JuUan, "the Apostate" (b. 332) who is known chiefly
for his attempt to substitute paganism for Christianity and to organize a pagan
church. Nevertheless he was "un tres-grand homme et rare ... et ... il n'est aucune
sorte de vertu dequoy il n'ait laissé de tres-notables exemples" (II, xix, "De la
liberté de conscience," éd. cit., p. 669). And the praise continues, although "en
matière de religion il estoit vicieux par tout." JuHan, like De Bèze, had undeniable
qualities, but they were vitiated by the wrong reUgion.
64
/
Renaissance and Reformation
It is perfectly safe to accept Smith as our guide through the often intricate
passages that show us how Montaigne cleveriy acconmiodated the censors while
giving up only a minimum of his original thou^t. Smith's sound piece of detective
work sheds Hght on an important remark made by Pierre Villey in his Montaigne
devant le postérité: "Quelque peine que nous ayons à la comprendre, il faut
admettre que, pour un catholique du XVI® siècle, il y avait là une liberté d'esprite
choquante"
(p. 92).
However, it is regrettable that the author has not made a better assessment of his
potential audience. This is a work that cannot hope for popular appeal and
therefore it is inappropriate that the French original has not been kept. One might
be more forgiving on this score if the translations offered were smooth and correct
I am afraid they are not. By way of a sample, one should compare the passage
dealing with De Bèze, on p. 46 of Smith's book, with the corresponding sentence at
the bottom of p. 756 of Frame's The Complete Essays ofMontaigne. It is also not
at all helpful that Smith refuses to give page references. With regard to specific
essais he leaves us floundering by telling us, "about three-quarters of the way
through" (p. 46), "and a little later" (p. 70), "near the beginning" (p. 101). At
least it is conceded that "it would do no harm for the reader to look at Montaigne's
original French, if possible, for many parts of Montaigne are difficult to translate"
(p. 13). "If possible" could only apply if we were asked to check on the original
editions Smith used in the British Library, an unreasonable expectation.
BODO L.O. RICHTER, State
University of New York at Buffalo
Clark Hulse. Metamorphic Verse. The Elizabethan Minor Epic. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1981. Pp. 296. lUus. 14. $22.50
The decade of the
1
5 90s was for England a time of extraordinarily rich and varied
and at least one of the results of this burgeoning was the birth
of a new form, the minor epic. Although every major Elizabethan writer except
Sidney wrote a minor epic, it is today a neglected form, and, were it not for its
major exemplars, Shakespeare ( Few m5 and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrèce)
and Marlowe {Hero and Leander), it would be an almost forgotten one. The
reason for this neglect, according to Hulse, is that we tend to privilege literature's
"timeless values," the qualities that transcend temporality, whereas the minor
epic can only be properly understood within its historical context. The ambitious
promise of Hulse's Metamorphic Verse is to provide such an historical context, to
restore the minor epic to its place in "the network of Elizabethan theory and
practice." It is a promise he admirably fulfills, and in doing so, not only does he
construct a poetics for the minor epic, but he provides an important model for the
criticism of Renaissance literature in general.
The genre of minor epic refers to a body of narrative verse that, although
comprising a variety of subjects and approaches, nevertheless draws on two main
sources: classical myth and the English chronicles. The term Hulse uses to
describe the minor epic is "metamorphic," and he does so first because the largest
literary production,